“Unconditionally Stable, Simple and Fast, Direct Nonlinear Analysis

(without Matrix Factorization and Iteration) using nathan-a Method ”

Nathan Madutujuh (E-mail: esrc.nathan@gmail.com, Web : www.esrcen.com)
(Director of Engineering Software Research Centre, ESRC, Bandung, Indonesia)

Abstract: The availability of high strength and thinner material that creates more complex structural system
requires the use of nonlinear analysis, with materially nonlinear or geometrically nonlinear effects, especially in
seismic area. Solving this problem using existing nonlinear analysis procedures is very time consuming, difficult to
apply and in some methods, can not go beyond limit points. To cope with these problems, a new nonlinear analysis
procedure, that is more stable, simpler to implement, much faster, and does not require iteration, called Direct
Nonlinear Analysis using a Method, has been developed. The new procedure has been tested for single and
multidimensional problems with good results. The method can be extended to various problems, and can be
improved to make it even faster or more stable using more detail algorithm. The availability of this new method will
open new field of research in nonlinear analysis to provide us with better nonlinear analysis solution.

Keywords: Fast Nonlinear analysis, Direct Nonlinear Analysis, Alpha Method, DNA- a Method, nathan-a Method,
Newton-Raphson Method, Arc-Length Method, Riks-Wempner Method, Crisfield Sphere Method, Mean Value
Theory, Post-Buckling Analysis, Strain hardening, Materially Nonlinear, Geometrically Nonlinear, Incremental
Iterative Nonlinear Analysis, Push Over Analysis, Second Order Analysis, Unconditionally stable.

Introduction

Nonlinear analysis usually required for problems with very soft material with nonlinear behavior even at
small forces or deformations, such as in geotechnical problems, or in problems involving very large
forces (as in seismic load) capable to turn any material to behave nonlinearly because its stress-strain
curve has passed the elastic point, Changes of boundary conditions (contact problems), or for structures
exhibit large deformations requiring the use of higher order stiffness matrices formulation behaving
nonlinearly to load changes.

Nonlinear Analysis Problems in Engineering Applications

In this paper, we will focus on nonlinear analysis problems in real engineering applications. The specific
properties of engineering problems will be utilized to devise a new nonlinear analysis method suitable for
the real problems. Usually in engineering problems the initial state is known (x=0, y=0), the model
behaves linearly at early stage before reaching nonlinear stage, it also behaves linearly during unloading,
the tangent stiffness matrix is always positive definite (determinant of the tangent stiffness matrix is real
and exist) at the linear region. In the nonlinear region, structure can have several bifurcation points, and
in certain cases, can have snap-through and snap-back behavior. Some materials can also show softening
or hardening effects. Load can be applied in incremental step, and even dynamic load can be simulated
by pseudo-static incremental load. In large deformation state, load-deformation relationship will be
nonlinear, requiring geometrically nonlinear model (P-delta effects). Changing of boundary condition and
support condition can also create nonlinear behavior. In engineering problems, tangent stiffness can be
computed for every load step and available to be used for next state. Using these principles we will
devise a new method that can solve any nonlinear problems, unconditionally stable, directly without any
iteration. The latest AISC steel code recommends the use of nonlinear analysis as the standard procedure.

Fig. 1. Equilibrium Path with Linear and Nonlinear regions (ResearchGate.net, 2015)
Materially Nonlinear structures can be analyzed using Nonlinear material model, Elasto-plastic or Bi-
linear Model, and Material Strain Hardening model.

Fig.2a. Nonlinear Material (Zareh) Fig.2b. Bi-linear Material Fig.2c. Strain Hardening

Geometrically nonlinear

Certain type of structures can have buckling or snap-through or snap-back phenomena when large load
causing large displacement applied.

Fig. 3a. Geometrically Nonlinear (Zareh, 2008) Fig.3b. Snap-through Effects (Zareh)

If a structural model has one or more of the nonlinearities above, the response of the structure can only be
calculated accurately by an accurate and stable nonlinear analysis method.

Review of currently available Nonlinear Analysis methods

Due to its nonlinear behavior, the solution for nonlinear problems is not easy to be solved directly, but
must be solved iteratively using some iteration schemes. The solution can be divided into explicit or
implicit methods, where implicit method means we try to find the value of x,f(x+d) using previous value
of x,f(x) and estimated value of f(x+d), while in explicit method we find the value of x,f(x+d) using only
known values of x,f(x). The explicit method is straightforward, does not need iteration, but requires very
small load step, while the implicit method requires more difficult calculations for iterations, but can use
larger load step.

The first implicit method to solve a nonlinear equation is Newton-Raphson method (from Raphson's
Analysis Aequationum Universalis, 1690 and Isaac Newton, 1969). Newton's method is a simple and
powerful technique, with quadratic convergence behavior, but requires the function derivative (tangent
stiffness matrix) evaluated in the calculation. It can diverge from the solution if the initial point is not
correctly estimated, and overshoot the solution and even diverge to other solution. The method is also
slow to converge for multiple roots condition or near bifurcation points.
The Modified Newton-Raphson method tries to save some valuable time by reusing the previously
calculated tangent stiffness matrix for several iterations before recalculate the tangent matrix again at
converged point, by paying more time and more iterations.

Fig.4a. The Newton-Raphson Method (1690) Fig.4b. The Modified Newton-Raphson (NIDA)

Because the Newton-Raphson method is not stable and very slow at limit points, several new methods
have been invented to solve the problems: Displacement control method, Arc-Length Method (Risk, 1979
and Wempner, 1971), and Modified Arc-Length Method (Crisfield, 1981).

All methods tried to devise a way to trace next equilibrium state based on one previous equilibrium
state. While the new proposed method will use two previously calculated equilibrium states to find the
next equilibrium state, using Mean Value Theory. This is the basic principles of the proposed method.

From below illustrations, we can see that the current method use very complicated algorithms to trace the
equilibrium path correctly, especially to determine whether the path is increasing or decreasing, and how
to handle limit point conditions. For each step, there will be many calculations should be done, involving
factored tangent stiffness matrix, load vectors and displacement vectors.

The Displacement Control Method

To cope with the instability of Newton-Raphson method near limit points, instead of increasing the load,
the Displacement Control Method uses the displacement increment to find the next equilibrium point. In
this way, the method can trace the equilibrium path passing the inflection points. The displacement
control method performs satisfactorily when handling snap-through problems, but it fails at a snap-back
point. Moreover, it may be very difficult, in some cases, to select a suitable displacement degree of
freedom as the control parameter.

The Constant Work Method

The constant external work method to keep the work done in each load increment constant was proposed
by Bathe and Dvorkin (1983). They claimed that it is more reliable than the arc-length method near a
critical point. Later, Yang (1984) employed the constant work method for large deflection analysis of
frames. However, Chan and Ho (1990) proved mathematically that this method is equivalent to the
displacement control method with the steering displacements being the same as all the displacement
degrees of freedom.

Several other analysis methods have been invented based on The Displacement Control method, The Arc-
Length Method or mixed of the two approaches.
 Fig.5. The Displacement Control Method (NIDA)

The Arc-Length Method

One of the most applicable techniques is the Arc-Length Method. In 1979, Riks introduced the constant
arc-length which could pass the limit and turning points. Subsequently, Crisfield modified Riks' approach
and established the cylindrical arc-length method. Afterwards, Fuji and Ramm (1981) investigated the
path switching for bifurcation points in equilibrium paths.

The basic concept of the spherical arc-length method is to constrain the load increment so that the dot
product of displacement along the iteration path remains a constant in the 2-dimensional plane of load
versus deformation.

The main disadvantages of the original Arc-Length Method is that it is very complicated to implement,
and the symmetrical nature of the tangent stiffness matrix is destroyed by the imposed additional
constraint equation for displacement control. To overcome this problem, Crisfield (1981) and Ramm
(1981) independently suggested an iterative process which separates the constraint equation from the set
of equilibrium equation so as to retain the symmetrical and banded nature of the tangent stiffness matrix
which is a common feature for finite element method of analysis.

Fig.6. The Original Arc-Length Method (Riks, Wempner, 1971) using Constant Line Search
The Modified Arc-Length Method

Crisfield (1981) found that the Riks method was not suitable for standard finite element analysis even
with modified Newton-Raphson (mN-R) procedure, because equations proposed by Riks destroy the
banded nature of the stiffness matrix. For one-dimensional problem with N displacement variables,
Crisfield (1981) gave the modification of the method and suggested the fixation of incremental length Δl
during load increment using a special constraint. The proposed technique is termed as Cylindrical or
Spherical Arc-Length Method or The Modified Arc-Length Method.

Fig.7. The Modified Arc-Length Method using Spherical Search and Accelerations (Crisfield, 1983)

Fig.8. The Arc-Length Method with Secant Change (Ramm, 1981)

Due to its accuracy, reliability and satisfactory rate of convergence, The Modified Arc-Length Method is
probably now the most popular method for nonlinear analysis, and it was noted to be robust and stable
for pre- and post-buckling analysis.

The Minimum Residual Displacement Method

The basic idea of this method originally proposed by Chan (1988) is to minimize the norm of residual
displacement in each iteration. The graphical representation of the procedure is demonstrated in Fig.9
showing the similarity with the Arc-Length Method.

From the Figure, it can be seen that this constraint condition enforces the iteration path to follow a path
normal to the load-deformation curve. It adopts the shortest path to arrive at the solution path by error
minimization and thus is considered to be an optimum solution. Due to its efficiency and effectiveness in
tracing the equilibrium path, the minimum residual displacement method is usually chosen to perform the
iterative procedure and combined with the part for load size determination in the first iteration by the arc-
length method.

Fig.9. Minimum Residual Displacement Method (Memon, 2004)

Comparison of Existing Methods

The constant work, the arc-length and the minimum residual displacement methods are capable of tracing
the nonlinear load-deformation curve with snap-through and snap-back phenomena. It has been generally
observed that the minimum residual displacement method gives the most rapid rate of convergence and
the highest reliability among these three methods. Better performance may be achieved when the
minimum residual displacement iterative scheme is used in conjunction with the arc-length load
increment for nonlinear static analysis.

Summary of difficulties of current method are :

a. Most methods are slow to converge near limit points and even fail to converge at all
b. The implementation of the most robust Arc-Length method requires long calculations
c. Load step is difficult to control and determine
d. Some methods can not trace the snap-through and snap-back behavior
e. Most methods can not use costly acquired valuable information resulted from previous
iterations (Previous unfactored stiffness matrix, Previous tangent stiffness matrix, Previous
Load and Displacements Vectors)

A New Nonlinear Analysis Method using New Approaches

To provide a better nonlinear analysis method capable to deal with common engineering problems and to
solve some difficulties found in existing methods, the author proposed a new nonlinear analysis method
called Direct Nonlinear Analysis using nathan-a Method (or DNA nathan-a Method).

In all above analysis, only one previous state is used to find the next equilibrium state, while in this new
method, two previous states will be used to find the next state.

In this method, a new approach utilizing previously calculated tangent stiffness matrix at previous state
and equilibrium path at two previous states will be used to find the next equilibrium path.

Parallel to The Newton-Raphson approach, the new method is based on another very simple and well-
known basic principle of Calculus, called The Mean value Theory as follows.
Mathematical Background

The mean value theory says : For any function that is continuous on [a,b] and differentiable on (a,b)
there exists some c in the interval (a,b) such that the secant joining the endpoints of the interval [a,b] is
parallel to the tangent at c.

Fig.10a,b. Mean Value Theory (Wikipedia, 2015)

or in equation form: (Equation 1)

In other words, for a segment of a curve from a to b, if the gradient of line from a to b is known, there
will be at least one point c in the curve segment exists which has a tangent line equal to the gradient of
the line. But from the theory, we can not say that for a certain point c with tangent m, there will always
exist a line connecting a to b with gradient equal to m. This will create a problem in the proposed new
method below.

Using a and c as two previously defined equilibrium states, and tangent at c as the tangent stiffness
matrix of the structure, x as the displacement vector and y as the load vector, we will develop the direct
nonlinear analysis procedure as follows.

Direct Nonlinear Analysis using nathan-a Method

We will apply above principles for solving nonlinear problems, to iterate along the equilibrium path.
Using the fact that for almost any structures, the first region will be linear and the initial state will be well
defined or zero, we can assume that at least two states F0 and F1 are ready to be used for calculating F2.
Subsequently, F1 and F2 are available when calculating F3, and so on.

Fig. 11. Direct Nonlinear Analysis using a Method

If the curve of equilibrium path is not straight line, which is true for most nonlinear cases, using the
above Mean Value Principle, there will be a point (u2,F2) having a tangent equal to the gradient of line
connecting point 1 and point 3, where point 1 and 2 are already defined, but point 3 is still unknown. If
we assume that point 3 is located aD from point 2, we can calculate the load level at point 3 as:

F3 = F1 + Kt2 x (1+a)D (Equation 2)

D = (u2 – u1) (Equation 3)

The value of a can be selected from the fact that correct value of a will give minimum residual forces
between external nodal load vector and nodal load vector accumulated from element forces. It can be
searched from simple procedure as follows:

1. Compute three residual forces F3i using three values of a : (a1,D F31), (a2,D F32), (a3,D F33)
where :
D F31 = F3ext – F3int (Equation 4)
a1 = 1.0 (good estimation for starting value)
a2 = a1 – 0.1
a3 = a1 + 0.1

2. Using the three pair of values, solve the parabolic equation of residual forces:

D F = a*a2 + b*a + c (Equation 5)

3. If the solution exists, there will be at least one root of equation (5) that will give D F = 0, that
is the next equilibrium state. We can use this value as a to calculate F3 using equation (2).
For most cases, because of the nature shape of the curve, there will be at least one real root for
equation (5).

4. If the solution is not exist, that means the previous two states are almost in straight line, or still
in linear region, or the tangent line of c does not intersect with the equilibrium path. In this
case, the next position can be calculated using two alternatives:

a. Using other (third) previous state that will not give a straight line condition so the quadratic
equation will give valid root (recommended).

F3 = Fo + Kt2 x (1+a)D (Equation 6)

D = (u2 – u1) (Equation 7)
a1 = 2.0 as good estimation for starting value
a2 = a1 – 0.1
a3 = a1 + 0.1

b. Using linear equation (assume that straight line will allow for linear interpolation):
F3 = F2 + Kt2 x aD (Equation 8)

In this case, we can use a = 1 or smaller (0.5) to improve the accuracy of the results.

The above procedure is repeated from displacement value = 0 to u max. The method above only uses
unfactored tangent stiffness matrix (Kt 2) and simple calculations. So we do not need to find the costly and
time consuming matrix inverse or factorization of Kt 2 that is not always available near bifurcation points.
For each load step, mostly zero or 1 iteration is needed to reach the correct solution. Thus the name of the
method is Direct Nonlinear Analysis nathan-a Method.

This means that the proposed method will be very stable, even near the limit points or passing buckling
points. It is shown also that the stability of the solution is independent of the time step selected. The
accuracy of the results depends only on selected value of D and procedure for computing internal forces
of elements involved.
General Procedure

1. Initial stage (Linear region)

Known initial states: uo = 0, Fo=0, Kto (Tangent stiffness matrix at u=0, = Linear stiffness Ko)

Determine load step :

D = Fmax/ndiv (Equation 9)
where
ndiv = number of division required

Find : u1, F1 using Linear equation

u1 = [Kto]-1 x F1 (Equation 10)

Find [Kt1], do not need to factorize it

2. Next stage (Nonlinear region)

Using two equilibrium states (uo,Fo,Kto) dan (u1,F1) do Direct Nonlinear Analysis using
nathan-a method described above.

Repeat until all points at equilibrium path have been traced.

Test Bed Program

A simple program for testing above proposed procedure has been written. Several parameter for Direct
Nonlinear Analysis such as Number of Iteration, Number of Load Step, Interpolation Scheme have been
tested to find the optimized values.

Fig. 12. Test Bed Program for Fast and Direct Nonlinear Analysis using a Method
Sample Problem

A simulation of well-known simple truss arch problem using cubic polynomial will be solved using the
Direct Nonlinear Analysis using nathan-a method with various number of load steps. The Truss-Arch
problem has a special feature called Snap-through, where if the load is still increasing, in certain point,
the member force changed rapidly from compression state to tension state. The truss-arch will be
unstable at snap-through region.

Fig.13. Truss Arch with Snap-through Problem (Mathisen, 2012)

The explicit nonlinear solution for the above Truss-Arch problems is:

(Equation 11)

Evaluating the result, it can be shown that the solution is stable, even for very few load steps, and will
achieved high accuracy at minimum of 40 load steps. The correction procedure used in the method even
can vary the load step depend on the curvature of the equilibrium path to get fewer load steps than the
initial maximum load steps defined at the initial stage.

Fig. 14.a. Simple truss, Number of load step=40 (red=theory, blue=this method)

The problem can be solved with high accuracy using only 40 load steps without iterations. It can be
shown that the load or displacement step changes dynamically, smaller near softening region and limit
points, and larger at flat region or hardening region. It can be seen that the blue line and the red line is
coincided. From the analysis output, differences smaller than 1e-6 can be achieved without any iteration.
 Fig. 14.b. Simple truss, Number of load step=25

Even using fewer load steps (n=25), the proposed procedure (blue line) can trace correctly the first and
other limit points and the hardening region. It diverge only a little bit near snap through region, but
correct itself to the right path after that.

This auto-correction feature is one of many inherent properties of the method, where it will go back to
the right path as long as the accuracy of the element forces calculation is quite good. This feature will
give the unconditionally stable characteristic for the method. Without any special treatment, correction,
or algorithms, the method can trace any point at equilibrium path correctly. This feature will give more
stable results for various engineering problems, providing a "fool-proof algorithm" that always converge
to the right solution.

Fig. 14.c. Simple truss, Number of load step=100

Using more load steps will give exactly the same result compared to number of load steps = 40. From this
comparison, it can be shown that the proposed method is always stable and independent of the selected
number of load steps. It can also pass any limit point, snap-through region, and hardening region without
any difficulties. As inherent properties of the method, it can varies automatically the size of load step
depends on the curvature of the equilibrium path, thus reducing the number of load steps accordingly.

Applications of Direct Nonlinear Analysis using nathan-a Method

Because the proposed method is straightforward, unconditionally stable, independent of number of load
steps, does not need iteration, and has variable load step, it can be applied to unlimited number of fields:
Steel Structures Analysis (Second Order Analysis, Buckling Analysis), Push Over Analysis, Soil-
Structure Analysis, Slope Stability, Dome Structures with Snap-through effects, Geotechnical Problems,
Tunneling, and even any general nonlinear problems such as to find roots of a nonlinear equation, etc.

Due to its simple calculation procedure, the proposed method can be used to solve nonlinear problems
graphically, or manually by hand calculation. It also can be implemented easily to any nonlinear
computer programs.

Discussions

A new procedure for Direct Nonlinear Analysis nathan-a Method has been described above. The
proposed procedure uses new approaches that have not been used in any nonlinear analysis methods
before. It's unique approach to use Mean Value Theorem and using two previously defined equilibrium
states instead of one, give it the long desired capability to solve the nonlinear problem directly without
iterations, with unconditionally stable condition. These new approaches, although very simple, are
neglected by others, during the intensive researches focusing on how to pass the limit points using only
the previous state. The Mean Value Theorem is already available since the development of Calculus, but
it has not been thought to be applicable in nonlinear analysis. So, the mathematicians are focusing on
how to find the roots of nonlinear equation using Newton-Raphson scheme, while engineers are focusing
on how to pass the limit points, which is the weakness of the Newton-raphson method. When we look
back one equilibrium state, and apply the Mean Value Theorem, we came to the new, efficient and direct
solution for the nonlinear problem.

The new procedure uses very simple Calculus principle of Mean Value Theorem to trace the next
equilibrium state based on two previously defined equilibrium states. The parameter a can be solved
directly using quadratic interpolation. From some cases, the initial value of a will be taken as 1.0
which so far has been proved to be the right choice for this method.

Using this method. it has been shown that it is possible to solve incremental nonlinear equation
directly, almost without any iteration needed. The proposed method, naturally, by itself, can trace any
point at equilibrium path, even the softening region, limit points, snap-through region, and hardening
region without any difficulties. The method can also give information about the type of region at a
certain equilibrium path (softening, post-buckling, hardening).

The proposed method is also unconditionally stable at limit points and does not need very small load
step to get the correct equilibrium state. The number of load steps selected affects only the accuracy of
the solution, and not the stability of the traced path. Inherently, the proposed method can vary the size of
the load steps depend on the curvature of the equilibrium path.

In some rarely found cases, the straight line of the equilibrium path, the quadratic interpolation failed to
give real roots for the parameter a. In this case, we can use previous equilibrium state and repeat the
same procedure using larger value of a = 2.0 and so on.

Conclusions

1. Using Mean Value Theorem and two or three previously equilibrium states, a nonlinear problems
can be solved directly without iteration using Direct Nonlinear Analysis nathan-a Method

2. The proposed method shows unconditionally stable properties at any region along the equilibrium
path, including softening, hardening and snap-through.

3. The proposed method can pass limit points and bifurcation points without any difficulties

4. The initial value of a = 1.0 will give the best estimation to the correct solution

5. The proposed method can vary dynamically the size of load steps depends on the curvature of
6. The proposed method is very effective and efficient and can give high accuracy solution with only
40 load steps

7. The correction procedure scheme to use the third and the first previous equilibrium states will avoid
the divergent solution

8. Because of the use of two or three previously equilibrium states, the proposed method needs to
store at least load and displacement vectors for 2 or 3 previous states, and also need to store the
unfactored tangent stiffness of the previous state. The storage requirement is almost the same as
other nonlinear algorithm.

Recommendations

1. The proposed method can be applied to efficiently solve nonlinear problems in many engineering
fields.

2. The method must be implemented with correction scheme for invalid roots cases\

3. To get correct result, the proposed method needs accurate tangent stiffness matrix formulation and
accurate nodal forces calculation from element internal forces.

4. The method must be used with at least 40 load steps to get good results along the equilibrium path

Further Studies

1. The proposed method may be extended to Nonlinear Dynamics Problems

2. More accurate algorithms to determine the best initial value of a can be studied further

3. A 3-points Bezier Curve Interpolation can be used to improve the quadratic interpolation

4. Although it is already very efficient, the proposed method can be combined with other existing
methods, especially to solve special cases where the quadratic interpolation fails to give real roots.

5. The proposed method can be applied to general nonlinear problem in other fields, such as to find roots
of a multi-variable nonlinear equation and eigen value problems.

6. Applying this method using a fast low-cost GPU computer currently widely available, a real-time
solution for nonlinear problems can be realized.
 References

Newton, Isaac, “De analysi per aequationes numero terminorum infinitas”, 1669, published 1736

Raphson, Joseph, “Analysis Aequationum Universalis”, London, 1690

Wempner, G. A., "Discrete Approximation Related to Nonlinear Theories of Solids," International

Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 7, 1971, pp. 1581-1599.

Riks, E., "The Application of Newton's Methods to the Problem of Elastic Stability," Journal of Applied
Mechanics, Vol. 39, 1972, pp. 1060-1066.

Riks, E., "An Incremental Approach to the Solution of Snapping and Buckling Problems," International
Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 15, 1979, pp. 529-551.

Ramm, E., "Strategies for Tracing the Nonlinear Response Near Limit Point," Nonlinear Finite Element
Analysis in Structural Mechanics, edited by W. Wunderlich, E. Stein, and K.-J. Bathe, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 1981, pp. 63-89.

Crisfield, M. A., "A Fast Incremental/Iterative Solution Procedure That Handles Snap-Through,"
Computers & Structures, Vol. 13, 1981, pp. 55-62.

Crisfield, M. A., "An Arc Length Method Including Line Searches and Accelerations," International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 19, 1983, pp. 1269-1289.

Powell, G., and Simons, J., "Improved Iteration Strategy for Nonlinear Structures," International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 17, 1981, pp. 1455-1467.

Yang, Y. B., and McGuire, W., "A Work Control Method for Geometrically Nonlinear Analysis,"
NUMETA 85—1985 International Conference on Numerical Methods in Engineering: Theory and
Applications, edited by J. Middleton and G. N. Pande, University College Swansea, Wales, UK, 1985,
pp. 913-921.

Batoz, J-L., and Dhatt, G., "Incremental Displacement Algorithms for Nonlinear Problems,"
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 14, 1979, pp. 1262-1267

MEMON Bashir-Ahmed#, SU Xiao-zu ( 苏小卒), “Arc-length technique for nonlinear finite element
analysis”, Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE, ISSN 1009-3095, J Zhejiang Univ SCI 2004
5(5):618-628, 2004

NIDA, “Numerical Methods for Nonlinear Analysis”, Department of Civil & Environmental
Engineering,The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hum, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China, 2015

Kjell Magne Mathisen, “Solution Methods for Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis (NFEA)”, Lecture 11,
Geilo Winter School, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2012

Hormoz Zareh,”Advanced Finite Element Analysis”, Portland State University, ME 565, Spring 2008,
Portland, 2008

Weaver, William Jr, Gere, James, M., “Matrix Analysis of Framed Structures”, 2 nd Edition, D. Van
Nostrand Company, New York, 1980

Purcell, Edwin J., Varberg, Dale, “Calculus with Analytic Geometry”, 5th Edition, Prentice-Hall, 1987

Wikipedia, “Mean Value Theorem”, 2015

 Curriculum Vitae
Name : Dr. Ir. Nathan Madutujuh, M.Sc.
E-mail : nathanmadutujuh@gmail.com
Web : www.esrcen.com
Birth Place : Alor, NTT, 2 Desember 1965

Education : SMAK 3, Gunung Sahari, Jakarta, 1984

S1 – Teknik Sipil (Struktur), UNPAR, 1989
S2 – Structural Engineering, Virginia Tech, Virginia, 1991
S3 - Doctor in Civil Engineering, UNPAR, 2010

Membership : HAKI – Himpunan Ahli Konstruksi Indonesia (Indonesian Society of Structural Eng.)
HATTI – Himpunan Ahli Teknik Tanah Indonesia (Indonesian Society of Geotechnical Eng)
HPI – Himpunan Penemu Indonesia (Indonesian Inventors Society)
PKMI – Paguyuban Karl May Indonesia

License : SIBP – DKI Jakarta (Surat Ijin Bekerja Perencana / Structural Engineers Permit)
IP-Struktur (HAKI Professional Engineer for Structures)
IP-Teknik Sipil (HAKI Professional Engineer for Civil Engineering)

Working Experiences:
1989-1990 Structural Engineer, PT Ketira Engineering Consultant
1990 Structural Engineer, PT Huffco Engineering
1991 Research and Teaching Assistant, Virginia Tech
1989-Now Director, Engineering Software Research Center, Bandung
1992-Now Director, PT Anugrah Multi Cipta Karya, Jakarta/Bandung
1994-Now Freelance Engineer for E.L. Robinson Engineering Consultant, Delaware

Teaching/Research Experiences:

1989 Computer Lecturer, Triguna Computer Course, Bandung

1994 Viscoelastic Damper Stiffness Matrix, PAU Rekayasa ITB, Bandung
1994 Computerized Structural Testing, Puslitbangkim PU, Cileunyi, Bandung
1995 Thesis Co-Advisor, S1-Teknik Sipil UNPAR
1996-2003 Lecturers on JICA Course at Puslitbangkim PU, Cileunyi, Bandung on
Structural Testing, Structural Modelling by Computer
1989-Now Development of computer program SANSPRO, PCAD, SOILAB
1989-2003 Teaching Short-course Building Design with SANSPRO V.4.7 at several
consultants in Jakarta, Yogyakarta, Semarang, Kupang
2003 Short-Course on Building Modelling at PT Wiratman & Associates
1989-2003 Seminar/Workshop on Structural Modelling, Building Design, at Universities:
Unpar, ITB, ISTN, Univ. Tarumanegara, UPH, UK Maranatha, UGM, Unwira
Politeknik Bandung, Unika Atmajaya, etc.
1989-2003 Short-course on Tower Design for several tower fabricators in
Tangerang, Jakarta, Bekasi, Semarang, Gresik
2003 Development of Load-Capacity Analysis Software for Precast Slab Industry
(PT Beton Elemenindo Perkasa / BEP), Bandung
2003 Development of Load-Capacity Analysis Software for Precast Pile Industry
(PT Beton Elemenindo Perkasa / BEP), Bandung
2004 Development of Steel Profile Cutting Plan and Storage System,
PT Cerah Sempurna, Semarang
2005 Development of Structural Design Software for SCANTRUSS System
2006 Development of Load-Capacity Analysis Software for Prefab Industry B-Panel
System (PT Beton Elemenindo Putera / BEP), Bandung
2011 Development of Safety Fiber Concrete Reinfocement System, Jakarta
2011 ESRC National Conference on “Aseismic Building Design”, Bandung
2012 Development of Data Logger System for Consolidation Test, Lab Unpar, Bandung
Development of Earthquake Load Calculation for SNI-1726-2012
2013-2014 Development of RUKOM System, Bandung
2014 Development for LUSAS to LARSAP Bridge Data Conversion Program
2015 Development of 3D Pile Settlement Analysis System using Mindlin Equation